Second Round of the Presidential Forever Championships

[Sam Spade]

Colin Wixted v. Sam Spade

Whoever wins here, advances.  Whoever loses here, goes home.

Colin Wixted [R-AK]: 65,021,707, 52%, 297 EV
John Anderson [D-LA]: 58,710,718, 47%, 241 EV



Moral of the story:  Conservative Southern Democrats just don't win, it seems.

Oh well.  Till next time.  Surprised I never did very well in the upper South as a whole.

[Platypus]

well, in all cases except Bono/Colin, my predictions were right, so i'm not dissapointed withe the results...plus, I topped my group

[Erc]

Group E:

Erc v. Gustaf

I need this to win.  And I'm going to win this, Texas or no Texas.

Gustaf Lundgren (D-MN): 64,602,445, 51%, 285 EV
P.G. Talbott (R-NY): 59,317,496, 47%, 253 EV



Total Record For New York Republicans: 0-12


DanielX v. Blerpiez

DanielX, thanks to his miraculous win in California last round, and Erc's loss this round, has a guaranteed berth.

Blerpiez needs to win this game in order to advance.

Peter Blerpiez (D-MA): 63,692,524, 51%, 304 EV
Daniel Smith (R-WY): 60,019,401, 48%, 234 EV




MHS2002 v. True Democrat

Both of these guys already have a berth in the next round.

Very close, nailbiting race.  Came down to CT and AZ.

Pettit wins AZ by less than 7000 votes...that's less than 7000 votes that True Democrat was away from the guaranteed #1 seed for the Democrats.

Scott Pettit [R-DC]: 63,294,884, 50%, 276 EV
True Democrat [D-PA]: 60,466,823, 48%, 262 EV

[ilikeverin]

Ilikeverin did pretty well on election night...pulling off Washington, Missouri, and Soult's home state of Pennsylvania--but it wasn't quite enough.

Chris Soult (R-PA): 65,504,499, 52%, 279 EV
Chris Ilikeverin (D-IN): 58,576,944, 47%, 259 EV

[snip]

The closest of the soulty wins since Round 1, certainly.

Yay, I made it pseudo-competitive

[Colin]

YES! I'm advancing! I have to win those close games in this next round or I'm gonna be dead in the water.

[Max Power]

Colin Wixted v. Sam Spade

Whoever wins here, advances.  Whoever loses here, goes home.

Colin Wixted [R-AK]: 65,021,707, 52%, 297 EV
John Anderson [D-LA]: 58,710,718, 47%, 241 EV



Moral of the story:  Conservative Southern Democrats just don't win, it seems.

Oh well.  Till next time.  Surprised I never did very well in the upper South as a whole.

Good job, Sam. It was a really close race between us for the second seed.

[jokerman]

The only reason conservative/populist Democrats aren't winning is because this game is screwed up into some kind of blue state/red state polarized non-sense and it underestimates the chances of one of those type Democrats in the south.

[Colin]

The only reason conservative/populist Democrats aren't winning is because this game is screwed up into some kind of blue state/red state polarized non-sense and it underestimates the chances of one of those type Democrats in the south.

It could also be that states like Oregon, Washington, Vermont, and Minnesota would vote for a moderate libertarian like myself instead of someone they find more conservative on social issues, even though I think that me and Sam are pretty close socially. How was I able to win most of the south? I have no idea.   

[jokerman]

The only reason conservative/populist Democrats aren't winning is because this game is screwed up into some kind of blue state/red state polarized non-sense and it underestimates the chances of one of those type Democrats in the south.

It could also be that states like Oregon, Washington, Vermont, and Minnesota would vote for a moderate libertarian like myself instead of someone they find more conservative on social issues, even though I think that me and Sam are pretty close socially. How was I able to win most of the south? I have no idea.   

Yeah, I'd agree with that too.

[Colin]

The only reason conservative/populist Democrats aren't winning is because this game is screwed up into some kind of blue state/red state polarized non-sense and it underestimates the chances of one of those type Democrats in the south.

It could also be that states like Oregon, Washington, Vermont, and Minnesota would vote for a moderate libertarian like myself instead of someone they find more conservative on social issues, even though I think that me and Sam are pretty close socially. How was I able to win most of the south? I have no idea.   

Yeah, I'd agree with that too.

The South probably has to do with the fact that partisan Republicans voted Republican and some of the social liberals in the South, I guess there are a few, probably voted me over Sam. That would probably give me enough to win in those Southern states.

[jokerman]

The only reason conservative/populist Democrats aren't winning is because this game is screwed up into some kind of blue state/red state polarized non-sense and it underestimates the chances of one of those type Democrats in the south.

It could also be that states like Oregon, Washington, Vermont, and Minnesota would vote for a moderate libertarian like myself instead of someone they find more conservative on social issues, even though I think that me and Sam are pretty close socially. How was I able to win most of the south? I have no idea.   

Yeah, I'd agree with that too.

The South probably has to do with the fact that partisan Republicans voted Republican and some of the social liberals in the South, I guess there are a few, probably voted me over Sam. That would probably give me enough to win in those Southern states.

There are still a lot of conservative registered Democrats in these states, as well as a lot of Republicans who remember their roots as Democrats and would revert back.

[Sam Spade]

The only reason conservative/populist Democrats aren't winning is because this game is screwed up into some kind of blue state/red state polarized non-sense and it underestimates the chances of one of those type Democrats in the south.

It could also be that states like Oregon, Washington, Vermont, and Minnesota would vote for a moderate libertarian like myself instead of someone they find more conservative on social issues, even though I think that me and Sam are pretty close socially. How was I able to win most of the south? I have no idea.   

Yeah, I'd agree with that too.

The South probably has to do with the fact that partisan Republicans voted Republican and some of the social liberals in the South, I guess there are a few, probably voted me over Sam. That would probably give me enough to win in those Southern states.

There's still very little that explains my continual losses in my home state of Louisiana, which is not really that Republican, statewide it leans Democrat, as well as most of the upper South like Arkansas, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and possibly Missouri and Kentucky.

Southern Democrats like Bill Clinton who basically ran an agenda very similar to mine fared very well in these areas and I think the game should take this into account.

I understand that I would have trouble in Oregon, Washington, Vermont, and Minnesota potentially.  But without the danger that I should pose in the upper South, it's no wonder that my average was right at 240 EV.

[jokerman]

The only reason conservative/populist Democrats aren't winning is because this game is screwed up into some kind of blue state/red state polarized non-sense and it underestimates the chances of one of those type Democrats in the south.

It could also be that states like Oregon, Washington, Vermont, and Minnesota would vote for a moderate libertarian like myself instead of someone they find more conservative on social issues, even though I think that me and Sam are pretty close socially. How was I able to win most of the south? I have no idea.   

Yeah, I'd agree with that too.

The South probably has to do with the fact that partisan Republicans voted Republican and some of the social liberals in the South, I guess there are a few, probably voted me over Sam. That would probably give me enough to win in those Southern states.

There's still very little that explains my continual losses in my home state of Louisiana, which is not really that Republican, statewide it leans Democrat, as well as most of the upper South like Arkansas, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and possibly Missouri and Kentucky.

Southern Democrats like Bill Clinton who basically ran an agenda very similar to mine fared very well in these areas and I think the game should take this into account.

I understand that I would have trouble in Oregon, Washington, Vermont, and Minnesota potentially.  But without the danger that I should pose in the upper South, it's no wonder that my average was right at 240 EV.

Yep.  The game's screwed up.

[Gabu]

Yep.  The game's screwed up.

The main issue with the game that I've seen is that it overestimates how partisan the states are.  For example, taking the South with a Democrat is extremely hard because the game assumes that they'll vote Republican unless given a really good reason not to.  It vastly underestimates the shift that would happen if the Republican is more liberal than the Democrat.  Personally, I think that it should base the original status of the states mostly on the platforms of the candidates, instead of mostly on what party the candidates are in.  Still, it's all we've got and it works pretty well as long as you don't throw something completely unrealistic at it (such as this case in which the Democrat is more conservative than the Republican in 2004).

I think that a very good addition (if anyone from 80 Dimensional Software is reading, ha ha) would be a "partisanship factor" assigned to each state... something you could set to be anywhere between 100 (won't ever, ever, ever vote Republican) to -100 (won't ever, ever, ever vote Democrat), with 0 indicating that a state doesn't give a crap about the party and instead cares solely about the candidates' stances.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Doesn;t the 0-5 party strength ranking sort of serve the same purpose, albeit on a national scale.  If both partoes were toned down a notch, might not the results be less partisan?

[Erc]

Doesn;t the 0-5 party strength ranking sort of serve the same purpose, albeit on a national scale.  If both partoes were toned down a notch, might not the results be less partisan?

The party strength thing is horribly messed up.  See discussion earlier in this thread for details.